RAJESH CHATURVEDI Vs. STATE OF U.P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents and Sri Yogendra Nath Yadav, learned counsel for the respondent no.4.

(2.) This petition has arisen out of orders passed in the proceedings drawn against the petitioner under Section 122-B of U.P.Z.A & L.R. Act read with Rule 115-D of the Rules framed under the said Act.

(3.) It appears that in respect of khasra plot no.237M (ad-measuring two biswas), proceedings under Section 122-B of the Act were initiated against the petitioner. The report submitted by the Lekhpal/Revenue Inspector concerned stated that the petitioner has been in illegal possession for last about eight years on the said plot which is recorded as banzar land and is vested in gaon sabha. The Tehsildar by means of the order dated 25.05.2015 ordered for eviction of the petitioner and he also simultaneously imposed damages to the tune of Rs. 2,00,000/- for illegal occupation. The impugned order dated 25.05.2015 passed by the Tehsildar recites that despite service of notice, the petitioner did not appear and participate in the proceedings, accordingly, the matter was proceeded ex-parte. The order further recites that on 16.01.2015 the statement of Lekhpal concerned was recorded who in his deposition stated that the petitioner has been in illegal residential possession over the plot in question and further that earlier also some proceedings for eviction under Section 122-B read with Rule 115-D of the Rules were initiated against the petitioner. The statement of the Lekhpal further was that the petitioner has again occupied the land belonging to gaon sabha unlawfully. Solely on the basis of statement of the Lekhpal, the Tehsildar passed the order dated 25.05.2015. The petitioner thereafter moved an application seeking restoration of the case stating therein that he did not have notice or knowledge of the proceedings pending which prevented him from participation and as such in the interest of justice, the order dated 25.05.2015 be set-aside and the proceedings be restored. The said application has been rejected by the Tehsildar by means of the order dated 26.05.2016 stating therein that the petitioner was given eight months' time to present his case, however, he did not file any documentary or oral evidence and hence, it appears that the petitioner is not interested in prosecuting the matter. Thus, the Tehsildar vide his order dated 26.05.2016 rejected the restoration application. The Collector also dismissed the appeal preferred by the petitioner by means of the order dated 110.2016.